The problem with what you believe is that it clearly contradicts Paul's teaching in Romans 4.

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

These verses clearly show that righteousness was imputed to Abraham through faith alone without works (vs. 4).
They also show in vs. 23-24 that we today are saved by that same faith without works as Abraham. So, it was the very same gospel.

And as I have shown before, Paul himself tells that Abraham heard the same gospel as Paul was preaching to the Gentiles.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

the gospel that was preached before is already spelled out in the context and it is not the gospel of grace but merely "In thee shall all nations be blessed." The Genesis account of what God told Abraham Paul clarified that the heathen (nations) would be justified through faith (blessed) and this by God himself.

However the Genesis account did not tell Abraham it was by faith alone, nor that it would be done by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. so Abraham had no Idea how God would bless the nations. Paul is showing us that the Gospel of Grace is the fulfillment of His promise to bless the nations through Abraham's seed Jesus Christ and that is all.

Paul is not saying that the Gospel of Grace through the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins was preached to Abraham in Genesis 12, 18 and 22.

you are the one who is ignoring the whole context of the immediate and cross referenced scriptures that show clearly what the the Word of God is saying.

The problem with what you believe is that it clearly contradicts Paul's teaching in Romans 4.

Rom 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb:
20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

These verses clearly show that righteousness was imputed to Abraham through faith alone without works (vs. 4).
They also show in vs. 23-24 that we today are saved by that same faith without works as Abraham. So, it was the very same gospel.

And as I have shown before, Paul himself tells that Abraham heard the same gospel as Paul was preaching to the Gentiles.

Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

I do not see how you can ignore this plain teaching.

I'll tell you how we can "ignore" it, brother Win. Because we are not looking through the blinders of "one gospel" preached throughout the whole Bible. Brandon showed you a separate gospel that Paul never preached, the "everlasting" gospel of Revelation. The "gospel" that was preached to Abraham in Gal.3:8 is found in Gal. 3:8:

Ga 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Brother, it's not a matter of "reading", it's not a matter of "studying", it's a matter of believing.

Bro. Winman,
I have been reading your first post, the article you shared by Pastor Lee Spencer, I think he brings out some good points on Ultra-dispensationalism.

"Personally, I have watched helplessly as a few close associates and long-time friends have embraced this untenable position. They soon become arrogant, hostile and condemning. Their self-imposed separation tends eventually to lead to bitterness and isolation...

At the risk of being redundant, it is very important for the sake of emphasis, that we repeat once more the tragedies of ultra-dispensationalism. No matter what one believes about how people get saved in other dispensations, the dispensation we have to deal with is this dispensation. Our plea to unsaved men is not based upon what we believe about other dispensations.

To major on teaching men about other ways of salvation in other dispensations clouds the present issue of how they must be saved in this dispensation (Acts 4:12). It is a cleverly designed ploy of Satan to keep us focused on the unimportant, while souls slip by us into an eternity without Christ. Precious souls, for whom Christ died, are dependent upon our giving them what they need to know about how they can be saved today.

Furthermore, it needlessly divides brothers in Christ. It feeds the starving ego (which should be dead - Romans 6) of a believer looking for recognition as a teacher of the "whole counsel of God." It is a form of one-upmanship that in reality makes that one someone who will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19). It eventually affects one's relationship with other believers.

A man can have right doctrine, and still live wrong, which sadly describes the problem of many who seek to follow Christ today. But a man cannot have wrong doctrine, and still live right. Works for salvation in any dispensation is wrong, and it puts stumbling blocks in the paths of others who are seeking God's truth."

Bro. Winman,
I have been reading your first post, the article you shared by Pastor Lee Spencer, I think he brings out some good points on Ultra-dispensationalism.

"Personally, I have watched helplessly as a few close associates and long-time friends have embraced this untenable position. They soon become arrogant, hostile and condemning. Their self-imposed separation tends eventually to lead to bitterness and isolation...

At the risk of being redundant, it is very important for the sake of emphasis, that we repeat once more the tragedies of ultra-dispensationalism. No matter what one believes about how people get saved in other dispensations, the dispensation we have to deal with is this dispensation. Our plea to unsaved men is not based upon what we believe about other dispensations.

To major on teaching men about other ways of salvation in other dispensations clouds the present issue of how they must be saved in this dispensation (Acts 4:12). It is a cleverly designed ploy of Satan to keep us focused on the unimportant, while souls slip by us into an eternity without Christ. Precious souls, for whom Christ died, are dependent upon our giving them what they need to know about how they can be saved today.

Furthermore, it needlessly divides brothers in Christ. It feeds the starving ego (which should be dead - Romans 6) of a believer looking for recognition as a teacher of the "whole counsel of God." It is a form of one-upmanship that in reality makes that one someone who will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19). It eventually affects one's relationship with other believers.

A man can have right doctrine, and still live wrong, which sadly describes the problem of many who seek to follow Christ today. But a man cannot have wrong doctrine, and still live right. Works for salvation in any dispensation is wrong, and it puts stumbling blocks in the paths of others who are seeking God's truth."

I've been watching exchanges between Tony and Bro. Parrish and others to try to find out where the truth lie. "Hyperdispensationalism" which has progressed to "ultradispensationalism" in one corner. "Moderate" dispensationalism in the other corner. The boxing metaphor is intentional. The bully is in one particular corner but I won't name names. I don't think I have to. Think about that.

From corner one, I am waiting to find out if there is such a strict law of grace that it precludes believers from being saved if they don't perfectly understand that salvation is by grace alone, not of works of any kind (If such a strict standard applies then I was not saved for years after I thought I was). I don't know the answer. I will find out, God willing. What does the following quote from Winman's preacher mean? What I just said above or does it mean that this teacher thinks "hyperdispensationalism" allows for sin since we are under grace and excuses it? His argument about dividing the body of Christ, starving ego, recognition as a teacher, one-upmanship doesn't hold water for me. That is the argument of the status quo. It has no bearing on the truth; it's irrelevant.

Quote:

To major on teaching men about other ways of salvation in other dispensations clouds the present issue of how they must be saved in this dispensation (Acts 4:12). It is a cleverly designed ploy of Satan to keep us focused on the unimportant, while souls slip by us into an eternity without Christ. Precious souls, for whom Christ died, are dependent upon our giving them what they need to know about how they can be saved today.

Furthermore, it needlessly divides brothers in Christ. It feeds the starving ego (which should be dead - Romans 6) of a believer looking for recognition as a teacher of the "whole counsel of God." It is a form of one-upmanship that in reality makes that one someone who will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19). It eventually affects one's relationship with other believers.

A man can have right doctrine, and still live wrong, which sadly describes the problem of many who seek to follow Christ today. But a man cannot have wrong doctrine, and still live right. Works for salvation in any dispensation is wrong, and it puts stumbling blocks in the paths of others who are seeking God's truth."[/I]

Your posts here, Bro. Parrish and brother chette, show me that although you protest that salvation is of faith alone, you don't really believe it. Please tell me, how could you support this twisted teaching in this guys' sermon? Can't you see that his teaching is indicative of the false doctrine that has confused brother Winman? AMEN to that sermon??? It is so full of error and strawmen arguments I honestly don't know where to begin, but I'll start here:

Quote:

Men are not responsible for the revelations which God has given in past dispensations. These revelations are progressive, and one dispensation's revelations are built upon a former dispensation's, and thus former revelations are instructive for each succeeding dispensation.

In each dispensation man has been justified by faith. They believed what God said in each dispensation. That is the key. Did they believe in the crucifiction, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, the Son of God in previous dispensations? Of course they didn't. It was a MYSTERY!!!

"These revelations are progressive???

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Quote:

These revelations are progressive, and one dispensation's revelations are built upon a former dispensation's, and thus former revelations are instructive for each succeeding dispensation.

Instructive, yes. Progressive, absolutely not!

Are you really going to say amen to a sermon filled with straw-man arguments? A word study on grace? This is elementary. God's grace is the only reason any human being is saved in any dispensation. Ten year old christians know this. Do I have to copy and paste Hebrews and James here?

Is this one gospel only? Are you like Whirlwind? Will you defy the plain words of scripture for a private interpretation? Winman? Whirlwind was banned for questioning the inerrancy of the scriptures. What's the difference between this and that?

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

I have great respect for the likes of Ironside which you linked in another thread, Bro. Parrish. I'll be studying this, but I have to say that the arrogance, hostility and condemnation has not exactly been coming from Tonybones' corner. I have seen more kindness and charity come from this man than from some others on this board, I have to include myself in that.

I've been watching exchanges between Tony and Bro. Parrish and others to try to find out where the truth lie. "Hyperdispensationalism" which has progressed to "ultradispensationalism" in one corner. "Moderate" dispensationalism in the other corner. The boxing metaphor is intentional. The bully is in one particular corner but I won't name names. I don't think I have to. Think about that.

From corner one, I am waiting to find out if there is such a strict law of grace that it precludes believers from being saved if they don't perfectly understand that salvation is by grace alone, not of works of any kind (If such a strict standard applies then I was not saved for years after I thought I was). I don't know the answer. I will find out, God willing. What does the following quote from Winman's preacher mean? What I just said above or does it mean that this teacher thinks "hyperdispensationalism" allows for sin since we are under grace and excuses it? His argument about dividing the body of Christ, starving ego, recognition as a teacher, one-upmanship doesn't hold water for me. That is the argument of the status quo. It has no bearing on the truth; it's irrelevant.

Your posts here, Bro. Parrish and brother chette, show me that although you protest that salvation is of faith alone, you don't really believe it. Please tell me, how could you support this twisted teaching in this guys' sermon? Can't you see that his teaching is indicative of the false doctrine that has confused brother Winman? AMEN to that sermon??? It is so full of error and strawmen arguments I honestly don't know where to begin, but I'll start here:

"These revelations are progressive???

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

Instructive, yes. Progressive, absolutely not!

Are you really going to say amen to a sermon filled with straw-man arguments? A word study on grace? This is elementary. God's grace is the only reason any human being is saved in any dispensation. Ten year old christians know this. Do I have to copy and paste Hebrews and James here?

Is this one gospel only? Are you like Whirlwind? Will you defy the plain words of scripture for a private interpretation? Winman? Whirlwind was banned for questioning the inerrancy of the scriptures. What's the difference between this and that?

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

I have great respect for the likes of Ironside which you linked in another thread, Bro. Parrish. I'll be studying this, but I have to say that the arrogance, hostility and condemnation has not exactly been coming from Tonybones' corner. I have seen more kindness and charity come from this man than from some others on this board, I have to include myself in that.

Jen, the problem an advanced dispensationalist has, especially the ones such as the gentleman in the recordings I recommended to you, or me, is simple: People are afraid of the teaching.No one wants to say they were in error.

I can appreciate this preacher's opinions and his slanted view on it being "untenable", bless God yes it's "untenable" if he don't personally know one person in the movement, has never attended a Grace church and know nothing about us except through Harry Ironside, Peter Ruckman, or something he read somewhere written by someone who didn't know what they were talking about either. People asked me on the street ministry, what is a Grace dispensationsalist? My reply was we are fundamentalist independent Baptists who don't practice or teach water baptism. Now, what easier explanation can a person give? I belive the same "fundamentals" of the faith George, Brandon, and brother Parrish believes.

To say A grace believer teaches that dispensationalism gives a license to sin is pure slander, in plain Jacobean English, it's a lie. I've never heard it. I've never taught it. I know I don't need to "confess" my sins, they were forgiven 2000 years ago, but dispensational teaching gives no Christian the license to go get blistering drunk in a bar. Have I ever given you a string of Scripture and then said, "Here Jen, believe what I do, it gives you a license to sin." I have the same album of recordings you do, did he say something I missed? Richard Jordan is the only man at this time I'd walk across the street to listen to a message being preached, is there somewhere he has preached that dispensationalism gives a license to sin? Has Cornelius Stam of the Bereans ever published anything that says that?

My point and my conclusion is I've never heard this before, this is the first I ever heard that the Grace dispensational teaching gives a "license to sin". Oh, I know of the accusations since Day One that it "spilts churches". No one will give me the name of one church that was split by "hyperdispensationalism". Now, I'm not throwing stones at Brother Parrish, but I asked him this question in the Water Baptism thread when it stopped being a Scripture study and became a forum for Harry Ironside and Peter Ruckman's opinions, read his reply to me. I know in the late 80s-early 90s Jack Hyle's church, that was claimed to be "the largest fundamentalist, soul winning church in America" didn't split, it exploded, and not because of "hyperdispensationalism", but because Hyles got busted in the revelation that he had been having a "love" affair with his personal secretary for 20+ years. He must have been a Grace believer!!!

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

1Co 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understandingbe men.

Thank you for your kind comments sister. Grace and peace to you, and brother Parrish, Win and Chette, and everyone reading this.

I have great respect for the likes of Ironside which you linked in another thread, Bro. Parrish.

Great, I hope you benefit.
There is actually an entire book at that link, with several chapters on the errors of the Hyperdispensational doctrine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenbear

I'll be studying this, but I have to say that the arrogance, hostility and condemnation has not exactly been coming from Tonybones' corner.

LOL, condemnation? Well certainly that sounds like a "condemnation" of ME
on your part, sister. Have you been attending Chette's royal college of hypocrisy?

YES, I condemn false teaching. I also make a lot of encouraging and positive remarks here, but I will condemn false teaching. That is scriptural. If Ultras and Hypers don't want negative comments about their doctrinal errors and cheap stabs at Baptist preachers, then let them post their ideas on a private forum where no one can say a word. But I rarely make personal attacks or judgments about the people here, and I try not to call them "chickens or neanderthals" either.

Look, I made ONE POST ON THIS THREAD, and it was to Winman.
If that constitutes arrogance, hostility and condemnation, perhaps the eggshells are getting too thin around here. Meanwhile Jennifer, while you have been over here judging me, Tony and I have been sharing hobbies over on another thread. So please don't ASSUME we are mortal enemies simply because we see the ordinance of believer's baptism differently. Besides, anyone who loves Apple computers can't be all bad.